Jump to content

Fallout 4 - VR Coming Soon


Uzi
 Share

Recommended Posts

So making an open world with an fps view is the same as making a third person one - there's no technical difference? I'm asking as I seriously don't know? I always assumed third person worlds were somehow easier to make/took less processing power to achieve?

How would that work when in 3rd person you have a wider angle and have to animate the main character?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So making an open world with an fps view is the same as making a third person one - there's no technical difference? I'm asking as I seriously don't know? I always assumed third person worlds were somehow easier to make/took less processing power to achieve?

3rd person is likely to take more processing as you have to render/animate the main character. I suspect first person allows all sorts of short-cuts when dealing with stuff like climbing through windows etc.

They are just different. Few games manage both views well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to deviate from looks good/looks bad discussion I don't think there's been much talk about what the trailer potentially does tell us in gameplay terms. (I am well and truly hooked at this point and have been trying to absorb every last morsel of information I can)

Though it appears very much a similar game there are a few things that really interest me in the trailer:

1. The suggestion there may be some dynamic weather in the world (There appears to be a thunderstorm over the Paul Revere statue)

2. All the breakdowns of the trailer harp on about a multitude of energy weapons on the pegboard at the end but it looks way more like different attachments for the laser rifle which would imply more weapon customisation.

3. Airships! hard to miss that but could they be a form of ingame fast travel like the stagecoaches in Red Dead. Opens up the potential for other working vehicles in the world too.

4. There is a subtle swaying of one of the curtains right at the start. This is very minor but possibly the world is going to be a bit more alive with physics (the ghouls that come barrelling through trolleys etc too though this doesn't look above and beyond what we had in the last Fallout to be fair)

(You may get the tiniest sense that I am in the 'cant fucking wait camp')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More realistic physics would make a big difference to the atmosphere they can generate. It was already pretty impressive in FO3 but you did sometimes get the sense that things were a bit barren when they shouldn't be. Probably why the particularly desolate locations worked so well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to deviate from looks good/looks bad discussion I don't think there's been much talk about what the trailer potentially does tell us in gameplay terms. (I am well and truly hooked at this point and have been trying to absorb every last morsel of information I can)

Though it appears very much a similar game there are a few things that really interest me in the trailer:

1. The suggestion there may be some dynamic weather in the world (There appears to be a thunderstorm over the Paul Revere statue)

2. All the breakdowns of the trailer harp on about a multitude of energy weapons on the pegboard at the end but it looks way more like different attachments for the laser rifle which would imply more weapon customisation.

3. Airships! hard to miss that but could they be a form of ingame fast travel like the stagecoaches in Red Dead. Opens up the potential for other working vehicles in the world too.

4. There is a subtle swaying of one of the curtains right at the start. This is very minor but possibly the world is going to be a bit more alive with physics (the ghouls that come barrelling through trolleys etc too though this doesn't look above and beyond what we had in the last Fallout to be fair)

(You may get the tiniest sense that I am in the 'cant fucking wait camp')

Loved the look of many things in the trailer, but mostly the the thought of roaming around with Dogmeat in the pursuit of a Deathclaw. "Hello, old friend, we meet again."

One breakdown noted what could be Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox, so expect some sort of mad baseball-themed cult / town. Also a bobblehead on the table at the end too, so that's my collecting itch taken care of and although that was never really in doubt, it's still cool to see.

Would love to see some sort of vehicles in the game, if the world is a lot bigger than 3 and NV. Choose between walking stealthily across the wastelands or risk making a racket in a car / on a bike and hoping the thing doesn't fall apart outside a mirelurk nest (or worse).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More realistic physics would make a big difference to the atmosphere they can generate. It was already pretty impressive in FO3 but you did sometimes get the sense that things were a bit barren when they shouldn't be. Probably why the particularly desolate locations worked so well.

Honestly I'd prefer the opposite, the real reason the cities were open on the original Xbox with 32MB of RAM but closed on the PS3 with 512MB (and presumably PS4 with 5GB) is because of all the physical models for clutter items and their physics that houses and urban areas have loads of were introduced.

Having seen what the Witcher can do if you just treat bookshelves and furniture as inventories and items as jpegs that make a non-physics enabled "loot bag" item when you drop them, I'd take the tradeoff of not being able to FusRoDah someones crockery if it meant we could have these massive seamless environments. I get more longterm enjoyment out of inhabiting an incredible place than seeing a tower of cheese wheels when I drop them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There'll be an inevitable 'The game world is X times bigger than Fallout 3/Skyrim' and it'll be greeted with great rapture. But I think I'm about the only one who'd like them to have a smaller but more dense game world. Boasts about the size of landmass usually mean we've made the toast bigger but we still only have the same (or less) butter so it'll just be spread really thinly over lots of copy-pasted desert texture.

You are far from the only person who says they want to see that, but personally I think it's a boring opinion. Why not make it bigger AND more detailed? That's the way video games have naturally progressed as technology has improved over the years. Why should we have to make a trade-off, when computers and consoles are more powerful now than they have ever been?

I thought the trailer was amazing. Looks like something of a re-hash but that's not a bad thing when the original concept was executed in such a compelling way. Fallout/ES games have always been about immersion and creating a living, breathing world, not about cutting edge graphics engines. You always get the experience of playing a beautiful game, because of the care that's gone into crafting the environment. We've come far enough now to realise that the sense of beauty that you experience while playing a video game comes from far more than the amount of polys it is pushing around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That must be a screenshot from the unannounced version with the next-gen engine! It's almost like a Pixar movie.

Um, really?

I don't really know what the shock is, we knew what the game Really Looked Like when not subjected to youtube compression before the trailer was released. This was the first screenshot we got yesterday:

46910_2_0.jpg

It has good texture work! The aesthetic in general is way better than Fallout 3 (and New Vegas). But it doesn't look like a massive step up over high-res Skyrim, it's clearly the same engine, and calling it near-Pixar levels is just bemusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3rd person is likely to take more processing as you have to render/animate the main character. I suspect first person allows all sorts of short-cuts when dealing with stuff like climbing through windows etc.

They are just different. Few games manage both views well.

I've been thinking about how a FP version of a Souls game would work. Sorry but "It just wouldn't" is too simplistic an answer for me.

Um, really?

I don't really know what the shock is, we knew what the game Really Looked Like when not subjected to youtube compression before the trailer was released. This was the first screenshot we got yesterday:

46910_2_0.jpg

It has good texture work! The aesthetic in general is way better than Fallout 3 (and New Vegas). But it doesn't look like a massive step up over high-res Skyrim, it's clearly the same engine, and calling it near-Pixar levels is just bemusing.

I am far more interested in how interactive the world is. Bethesda have traditionally been great at this, you go into a room and most of the items you see on the desk exist as physical (virtual) objects which can be knocked around or broken, or in some cases picked up and interacted with. I just want to see more of this basically.

It takes you out of the experience, for example, when you find a doorway blocked by bricks and planks which in reality wouldn't be much of a problem when you're carrying a rapid-fire rocket launcher (or even just a pickaxe) but you know it's no use, because that's actually not a ramshackle barricade of planks and rocks you're looking at - as far as the game engine is concerned it's a solid wall.

FO/ES have usually minimised the problems this causes by good design - i.e you just don't run across this situation too often. But I want each of those bricks and planks to exist as individual 3d objects which can be hacked apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are far from the only person who says they want to see that, but personally I think it's a boring opinion. Why not make it bigger AND more detailed? That's the way video games have naturally progressed as technology has improved over the years. Why should we have to make a trade-off, when computers and consoles are more powerful now than they have ever been?

Something to do with the Benjamins or her madge I hear ;) The competition are raising the bar for openworld RPGs, Bethesda are going to have to get with the times if they want to remain king.

I watched the Gamersyde encode of the trailer, looks like a tarted up last gen-based PC game, doesn't have any of the pop of more modern graphical techniques. The dog looked very last gen. Nice enough retro-vintage art-style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I'd prefer the opposite, the real reason the cities were open on the original Xbox with 32MB of RAM but closed on the PS3 with 512MB (and presumably PS4 with 5GB) is because of all the physical models for clutter items and their physics that houses and urban areas have loads of were introduced.

.

Walled cities make sense in a world where the inhabitants are trying to create a sanctuary against legions of monsters and maniacs, but it would be nice if the buildings with them were open instead of closed off mini dungeons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walled cities make sense in a world where the inhabitants are trying to create a sanctuary against legions of monsters and maniacs, but it would be nice if the buildings with them were open instead of closed off mini dungeons.

You can have walls around the city without it being a separate load though, like in Morrowind. I mean both of those things would do wonders for Bethesdas open gameplay - breaking and entering houses by peeking in the windows and seeing if the coast is clear, scaling up drainpipes and entering via windows, escaping guard patrols by diving from the walls into the moat, etc.

As it is, you have no way of seeing what's on the other side of the door even with a "detect life within 500m" potion active, resulting in a comedy of errors where you lockpick and everyone is standing there looking at you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so excited about this, I've already pre-ordered the PC version (for £26.59) even though that is stupid and I'll likely cancel it nearer to released for a cheaper inevitable deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't the technical limitations due to the first person element? One of the reasons I love Bethesda RPG's is the first person viewpoint, I find it the most immersive. If first person open worlds were easy to do then why did it take Rockstar till this new gen to achieve it on GTA?

They aren't easy. Just a little bit easier. Doing both well in the same game is difficult. I suspect the first person mode in the GTAV was an experiment that paid off and served to add value to the PC release. It was probably a massive job though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My internal monologue:

"Whoa, it really is Fallout 4! Fantastic! So great we're getting more, I really loved 3 and NV -- and the isometric 2d games, of course. I bet everyone in rllmuk is overflowing with joy at this great news. I'll go see."

::logs into thread, finds cynical horror show of backbiting and sniping and pixel counting and bitching::

Rllmuk. Rllmuk never changes.

You've actually flagged up the genuine inevitability of these threads: critics painted as anhedonic husks, while the enthusiastic are those who have retained true love for gaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.